Subject: RE: [Sipping] Re: [Sip] Re: Running code

From: "Burger, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:18:39 -0400

I have to agree 1000% with Henry here.  To answer Joel's concern, yes,
this does seem to be a SIP/SIPPING problem, and NOT necessarily an IETF
problem.  The SIPPING/SIP work groups have been on a bunch of wild goose
chases, and not all by newbies trying to re-invent the PSTN.  Do be sure
that *has* been a major problem.  However, things like XCAP immediately
come to mind as things that have been solved before by folks well versed
in data base and web update semantics.  It took us 3 years to rediscover
all of that good work.

The solution?  Unfortunately, SIPPING proposals are like porn.  You
really just "know" when something is not quite right.  I'd offer we
leave the choice up to the work group chairs.

-----Original Message-----
From: Henry Sinnreich [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 9:24 AM
To: 'Joel M. Halpern'
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Marc Petit-Huguenin'; 'sipping'
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Re: [Sip] Re: Running code

Joel,

> In general, with new work it is pretty hard to require implementation 
> of the early stage ideas.

If the authors of an idea do not invest and commit enough into writing
code,
why should they SPAM the WG with I-Ds? Can anyone here stand this flood
any
more?

The idea could still be discussed on e-mail on the list (with a topic
title)
without hijacking the IETF brand name to draw attention to themselves.

The flood of I-Ds that Dean has signaled clearly needs a better control
mechanism and just legitimizing more I-Ds with more WGs is not the
answer.

Maybe there are better self control and stabilization mechanisms to
control
the flood of I-Ds and it would be interesting to discuss various
options.

More WGs is not the answer IMHO, a self-regulating preselection
mechanism is
the answer: Auto preselection by obligation and commitment to write code
first.

Dean writes:

>Lovely idea, but needs to be part of the IETF process, not the SIP
process.

Yes, this is the original IETF process, before the _great flood_ swamped
us.

>The New Track working group, perhaps?
Great idea! The New Track will be a good place to experiment for
progress.

My two cents. Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 7:29 PM
To: Joel M. Halpern
Cc: [email-masked]; 'sipping'
Subject: [Sipping] Re: [Sip] Re: Running code

The way I see it, the I-D can start with an empty Running Code section,
like it is often the case with the IANA or Security section. As the
draft evolves, it can keep track of the various implementation of the
I-D in this section. This could be also a good indicator of the interest
in this work.

Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> [Sorry, I couldn't let this go without comment.  I have trimmed the CC
> so the leadership won't receive 3 copies.]
> 
> For SIP, maybe the problem space is in a state where that is practical
> (although I doubt it.)
> 
> For many other working groups, it would be really strange to require
> running code before accepting a draft for discussion.  For example, in
> ForCES we needed to agree on what the structure of the ForCES protocol
> needed to be.  Requiring people to implement ideas that we wanted to
> discuss would have made it very hard to have clear discussion. 
> Particularly since we had not agreed on the underlying transport, so
it
> would have been easy to confuse transport properties with application
> properties.
> 
> In general, with new work it is pretty hard to require implementation
of
> the early stage ideas.  It can sometimes even be counter-productive. 
> Efforts to provide early implementations of alternative management
> structures seemed to cause those emplementors to become wedded to
their
> particularl approach.
> 
> I definitely like implementation.  The routing area is in fact
> increasing the emphasis on implementation before standardization.  But
> implementation before I-D seems a mistake.  We usually ask folks to
> write up an I-D on anything they want discussed.  And in most working
> groups, if the topic is on charter and the approach looks sane, the
> document is often made a WG document to create a clear trackable state
> for the work.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
> 
> At 06:34 PM 3/3/2006, Dean Willis wrote:
> 
>>> Documents that are only proposals or concepts, but are not backed
>>> up by
>>> running code can be very well exchaged as e-mails on the various
>>> lists.
>>> In this way, WG I-D overload would disappear and Dean's problem
>>> will be
>>> solved.
>>>
>>> If there is no running code, discussions on e-mail is just fine.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Henry
>>
>>
>> Lovely idea, but needs to be part of the IETF process, not the SIP
>> process. The New Track working group, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
> Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip
> 
> 

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Home: [email-masked]
Work: [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: "Samir Srivastava" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:22:22 -0500

Thanx Eric for opening this thread. I didn't want to chime-in earlier,
till the persons have burnt fingers with problem.  Then understanding is
quicker. For members of this list only, I am referring to SIPS and SIP
over TLS issue discussed on SIP list.

What we need is a low cost proof of concept research lab level stuff to
support. Not an industrial strength stuff.

I don't want to be sound sarcastic on quoting this, I read somewhere
long time back
1) Stupids           ==>   Don't learn from his own mistakes.
2) Average Persons   ==>   Learns from the mistake.
3) Smart Persons     ==>   Learns from other persons mistake.

IMHO, By ignoring the Henry's advise from his wealth of experiences, we
are not definetely in 3).

I am leaving it to the group/chairs to decide, where and how they want
to address this if they want to.

Thx
Samir

-----Original Message-----
From: Henry Sinnreich [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 9:24 AM
To: 'Joel M. Halpern'
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Marc Petit-Huguenin'; 'sipping'
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Re: [Sip] Re: Running code

Joel,

If the authors of an idea do not invest and commit enough into writing
code, why should they SPAM the WG with I-Ds? Can anyone here stand this
flood any more?

Maybe there are better self control and stabilization mechanisms to
control the flood of I-Ds and it would be interesting to discuss various
options.

More WGs is not the answer IMHO, a self-regulating preselection
mechanism is the answer: Auto preselection by obligation and commitment
to write code first.

process.

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 7:29 PM
To: Joel M. Halpern
Cc: [email-masked]; 'sipping'
Subject: [Sipping] Re: [Sip] Re: Running code

it
of
their

>>> Documents that are only proposals or concepts, but are not backed up

>>> by running code can be very well exchaged as e-mails on the various 
>>> lists.
>>> In this way, WG I-D overload would disappear and Dean's problem will

>>> be solved.
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use 
> [email-masked] for questions on current sip Use 
> [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use
[email-masked] for questions on current sip Use
[email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use
[email-masked] for questions on current sip Use
[email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use
[email-masked] for questions on current sip Use
[email-masked] for new developments of core SIP